08 192870 WET 06 OZ
Send content, including photos, you want posted on blog to
Publicly comment on any post by clicking "comments"
Please contact if you want to be added or removed from the e-mail distribution list for 51 Lake Shore Drive
This blog was set up by neighbours concerned about development on this site. There is currently a proposal to build seven four storey units (six semis and one single) that would greatly reduce public views of the lake, is partially on green space and lakeside "hazardous lands" and is totally out of character with the neighbourhood. This would require a huge amendment to Toronto's Official Plan and zoning by-laws.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011


After aggressively blocking public objections in the courts and in the absence of any meaningful City or Provincial vigilance, Dunpar earlier this year successfully gained ownership of the G-zoned, lakefill waterfront portion of the site for a mere registration fee of about seventy bucks.  The land was handed over by our Provincial land watchdog (the Land Registry Office) without a public hearing and without any answers to the many questions and concerns the community still has.

It was expected that Dunpar would return to the Ontario Municipal Board this coming November with their absolute title in order to continue the appeal.  They have, instead, decided to withdraw (See Councillor Grimes' communication below).

We have been advised today by the City Solicitor  that Dunpar's solicitor has made the following statement to the Ontario Municipal Board:

"...given the passage of time since the adjournment of the hearing they ( Dunpar)  have concluded that they wish to consider alternative development options for the property and as a result they do not wish to re-start the hearing.  As  a result I have been instructed to advise that they are withdrawing their outstanding appeals filed with the Board involving this property (Board Files No. PL090404 and PL090405)." 

We do not have any further information regarding Dunpar's intention for this site. At this time there are no additional, new or changes to this  development applications on file with the City for 51 Lake Shore Drive

Councillor Grimes 

Mr. Zanini's next application to build on that property must conform to the City's Official Plan and its Zoning Bylaws and must include genuine consideration of the community's wishes through a sincere and open consultation process!

Monday, April 18, 2011


Here is a link to the full decision made April 6/2011 by the judge at the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice regarding the slapsuit (Zanini v. Wadon) against the last objector to Zanini's application for absolute title to the G zoned land on this site.

Saturday, April 16, 2011


Nine community residents formally objected to Mr. Zanini's application for absolute title to waterfront land shown on City of Toronto zoning maps as G - open space, parkland so that he could build townhouses right down to the water.

The community had been told by the City that the zoning designation was "a slip of the pen" and that they "could not find any paperwork to support the zoning".  True, zoning does not necessarily mean that the City owns the land but there had to be a reason for this designation, one that actually covers almost all of the South Etobicoke shoreline.

It has always been the contention of the community that the G designation was applied because of illegal lake fill done by landowners to increase the size of their property and because of lake fill done by the municipality to protect the shoreline after Hurricane Hazel and later storms - to be set aside for future waterfront parkland.

So nine objections were filed to get to the bottom of this and to have questions about a possible land grab of public land answered in a public hearing at the Land Titles Office, the City's position being totally inadequate.  (Follow this link to see details in one of the objections.

Zanini immediately filed a million dollar slapsuit against all nine.  Eight, under threat and duress, withdrew.  One held his ground.

Zanini's suit asked the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice to
  • invalidate the objection 
  • and grant Mr. Zanini title to the G zoned land!

On April 6th 2011, the judge made her decision.
  • She decided that the resident's objection was invalid and would be expunged
  • She dismissed Mr. Zanni’s motion for a determination and declaration that he is the registered owner with absolute title 

(There will be provided on this blog a link to the full eight-page judgement as soon as it it is made public.)

So, where does that leave us?  The application for absolute title will now go to the Land Titles Office unopposed , without any objections.

The community sincerely hopes that the Director of Land Titles will 
  • do due diligence
  • hold a public hearing
  • examine all the issues around this precedent-setting application
  • give weight to the letters that residents have sent him
  • demand that the City of Toronto fully explain the G zoning
  • ask the Province to give details of its examination of Crown rights in this matter
  • make Zanini prove his claims for legal title and provide evidence of accretion
  • make a decision based on Provincial and Municipal policies regarding public access to the waterfront 

- before the Director considers just signing it off!!

Friday, January 7, 2011


Kate Murray, Director of Titles at the Land Registry Office, wants to maintain her office's current hands-off approach to the issues surrounding ownership of this parcel of unregistered waterfront land.  
SLAPP suits don't matter; intimidation of the community doesn't matter; forced public silence doesn't matter; a probable public land grab doesn't matter.
She says the matter will only come to their official attention if the applicant requests it.  
That is, if Mr. Zanini's legal threats and bullying tactics don't work because an enlightened judge eventually throws out his SLAPP suit against the last remaining objector and declares "might does not necessarily make right" and Dunpar has no other choice.
Remember, the objections were made with the hope that there would be a much-needed public hearing at which questions would be answered and provincial policies on unregistered waterfront land examined.
This is a very disappointing response from our provincial government which one assumes is watching out for public interest and supports public engagement.  Maybe not!